• 57 Posts
  • 409 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle



  • While I do agree with your sentiment that street safety is a more complex issue that the small subset of enforcement that cameras provide, you seems to making perfect the enemy of the good.

    “the installation of a camera is an admission that real safety measures are being actively ignored.”

    While this statement may hold true for many different examples, security cameras in a store or in a public space do provide a level of “security”, similar to how a officer or a on-duty security guard may provide a level of “security” when on premise. But, crime prevention starts at the social level of a society with access to education, healthcare, housing, and meaningful fulfilling work.

    North America has IMO some of the worst roadway classifications, or lack thereof. We have residential and city streets designed like throughways with six lanes of traffic. At the same time we have roads designed like streets with multiple driveways and points of conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, and cars.

    Traffic calming measures are ideally the end goals with complete street redesigns to actually match the streets intended use and posted limits.

    Now cycling Infrastructure such as dedicated cycling lanes and intersection’s with dedicated saftey curbs ie. “bike bananas” are a traffic claiming measure. They shrink car lanes to prevent speeding, and actively promoting safer streets within cities and towns. But somehow Dougie seems to be both against traffic cameras and any type of city street redesign that negates the need for said cameras.

    Now ideal the small “revenue” that a traffic camera may produce is intended to go back into the roadway its self. Where traditional tickets from a officer may go into the funding of the police department. Similarly like how NYC’s congestion pricing for example, where all revenue goes back into the cities transit and infrastructure.








  • Translated to English

    Major grocery chains targeted in class action lawsuit

    Have you ever bought a Canadian product at the grocery store, relying on a label on the shelf, only to realize once you got home that it was actually an imported product? A Montrealer shocked by this experience has just filed a class action lawsuit on the matter.

    All major Canadian grocery chains are affected by the request: Loblaw (Maxi, Provigo), Metro (Super C, Adonis), Sobeys (IGA, Marché Bonichoix), Giant Tiger and Walmart Canada.

    The class action claim claims, with supporting photos, that these chains placed symbols and notices on their shelves or displays that could lead people to believe that the products came from Canada or Quebec when in fact they came from the United States or other countries elsewhere in the world.

    “Over the past year, buying Canadian and supporting Canadian producers has become more prominent in Canadian social consciousness, largely due to customs fees,” reads the class action filed Wednesday at the Montreal courthouse.

    “The problem is that […] many of these products advertised and sold by the [targeted grocers] as being “Canadian” were in fact imported from other countries,” continues the text, which calls this practice maple-washing .

    The Montrealer who filed the class action lawsuit believes he would not have purchased some of these products if he had not believed they were of Canadian origin.

    Bailiffs in grocery stores The purchase of a box of Val Nature brand granola bars at a Montreal Provigo store was the final straw. According to the photos filed in the application, the price tag for the granola bars was framed by a sign featuring maple leaves and stating “Prepared in Canada.” However, reading the small print directly on the granola bar box revealed the words “Product of the USA.”

    “I asked him to take photos, which he did, and then we wondered if it was systemic,” says Joey Zukran of LPC Avocats, who is leading the case together with Michael Vathilakis of the Renno Vathilakis firm.

    “We hired bailiffs who traveled almost everywhere in Quebec, and they prepared a report for us, compiling evidence that it’s not just one or two items in a store; it’s truly systemic. And worse still, it’s the same thing for private labels,” the lawyer says.

    “It’s impossible for them not to know that these are products that are not made in Canada, because they are the ones who make them elsewhere,” he continues.

    Anyone who purchased an item identified as Canadian or domestic in one of the affected grocery stores, but which was actually imported from another country, could be part of the class represented in the class action, if the application is accepted in its current form.

    The objectives of the class action are to stop these display methods, which are considered misleading, and to obtain financial compensation for the group members. The amount of the compensation sought was not quantified in the document.

    The grocers in question did not respond to La Presse 's interview requests .